ject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
>
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:41:35 -0500
> Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 1:05 PM
> > >
> >
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:41:35 -0500
Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 1:05 PM
> >
> > Just because Linux does it that way now doesn't mean it needs to. The
> > interrupt controller
> > has a compatible property.
AM
> > > To: Tabi Timur-B04825
> > > Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; Grant Likely; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Gala
> > > Kumar-B11780; Wood Scott- B07421; Alexander Graf;
> > > linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org
> > > Subject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
&
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 04:59:33 +0900
Grant Likely wrote:
> However, compatible values are cheap and while theoretically any
> hypervisor could create a similar machine, the reality is probably
> subtle difference between the implementations. I'd rather see the
> compatible reflect the specific imp
>> Scott-B07421; Alexander
>> Graf; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org
>> Subject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "MPC85xxDS" - for a virtual mach
; Gala
> > Kumar-B11780; Wood Scott-
> > B07421; Alexander Graf; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org
> > Subject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:45:47 -0500
> > Timur Tabi wrote:
> >
> > > >> A
Scott Wood wrote:
> The device tree is supposed to describe the hardware (virtual or
> otherwise), not just supply what Linux wants. Perhaps there simply
> shouldn't be a toplevel compatible if there's nothing appropriate to
> describe there -- and fix whatever issues Linux has with that.
That mi
ject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
>
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:45:47 -0500
> Timur Tabi wrote:
>
> > >> Also, if these are KVM creations, shouldn't there be a "kvm" in the
> > >> compatible string somewhere?
>
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:45:47 -0500
Timur Tabi wrote:
> >> Also, if these are KVM creations, shouldn't there be a "kvm" in the
> >> compatible string
> >> somewhere?
> >
> > There is nothing KVM specific about these platforms. Any hypervisor
> > could create a similar virtual machine.
>
> True
Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> We're talking about what would be meaningful to Linux as a guest on
> this platform here-- Corenet-based SoCs are similar
> in various ways, like using msgsnd for IPIs, having external proxy
> support, etc.
>
> A corenet platform created by a QEMU/KVM looks similar
Wood Scott-
> B07421; Alexander Graf; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms
>
> On Friday, July 8, 2011, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "
> -Original Message-
> From: Tabi Timur-B04825
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:39 PM
> To: Yoder Stuart-B08248
> Cc: Grant Likely; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Gala Kumar-B11780; Wood
> Scott-B07421; Alexander
> Graf; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: t
On Friday, July 8, 2011, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248
> wrote:
>
>> "MPC85xxDS" - for a virtual machine for the e500v2 type platforms
>> and would support 85xx targets, plus P2020, P1022,etc
>>
>> "corenet-32-ds" - for a virtua
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248
wrote:
> "MPC85xxDS" - for a virtual machine for the e500v2 type platforms
> and would support 85xx targets, plus P2020, P1022,etc
>
> "corenet-32-ds" - for a virtual machine similar to the 32-bit P4080
>
With KVM on Freescale booke parts we have currently two general types of
virtual platforms-- 1) an 85xx-like platform with e500v2 cpus,
etc, and 2) a P4080-like platform with a corenet based bus.
Today QEMU passes through to the guest a device tree with
a top level compatible of either "MPC8544DS"
15 matches
Mail list logo
